AMD EPYC 7F52 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous here. Across every single Cinebench test recorded in the database, the AMD EPYC 7F52 posts a higher score than the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180. There are no wins for Intel in the head-to-head results. The AMD part takes all six recorded benchmarks, with a consistent 8% lead in each test.

In Cinebench R15, the EPYC 7F52 scores 3540 points in the multi-core test against the Xeon Platinum 8180's 3277 points, an 8% advantage. The single-core result is also 8% in AMD's favor, with the EPYC posting 499 points versus Intel's 462. That is a notable result, as it shows the AMD chip does not merely rely on architectural throughput; it also carries a per-thread edge.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds exactly. The EPYC 7F52 records 14751 points in multi-core, while the Xeon Platinum 8180 records 13658. The single-core test shows 2082 for the EPYC against 1928 for the Xeon, again an 8% gap. The consistency of the delta, exactly 8% in every test, suggests a fundamental per-clock or per-core efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The most recent workload in the database, Cinebench R23, reinforces the trend. The EPYC 7F52 achieves 35123 points in multi-core, while the Xeon Platinum 8180 manages 32520. In the single-core R23 test, the EPYC scores 4958 against Intel's 4591. Again, the delta is exactly 8%. The AMD processor wins all six head-to-head comparisons, registering six wins and zero losses.

These results are consistent with the broader database context. The EPYC 7F52 holds a 66th percentile ranking among all CPUs, while the Xeon Platinum 8180 sits at the 65th percentile. The average benchmark score for the EPYC is 10159, compared to 9406 for the Xeon. That is a roughly 8% higher average score, matching the head-to-head deltas.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design generations and manufacturing processes, and those differences explain the benchmark outcomes. The AMD EPYC 7F52 is built on the Zen 2 architecture, codenamed Rome, and uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC. It integrates 3,800 million transistors on a 74 mm² die. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 uses the older Skylake-SP architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel's own foundries, with 8,000 million transistors.

The core counts go in opposite directions from what the scores suggest. The Xeon Platinum 8180 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the EPYC 7F52 has only 16 cores and 32 threads. Despite having 12 fewer cores and 24 fewer threads, the AMD chip still wins every multi-core benchmark by 8%. That is a direct indication of how much more work each Zen 2 core can complete per cycle compared to the Skylake core.

Clock speeds also favor AMD. The EPYC 7F52 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Xeon Platinum 8180 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The AMD chip operates at a higher base clock by a full 1.00 GHz and a slightly higher boost clock, which contributes to the single-core wins.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The EPYC 7F52 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 512 KB of L2 cache per core, and a massive 256 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon Platinum 8180 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache. The AMD chip's L3 cache is more than six times larger, which helps with data reuse and reduces memory pressure in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The EPYC 7F52 supports DDR4 memory across an eight-channel memory bus, with a peak memory bandwidth of 204.8 GB/s. The Xeon Platinum 8180 also supports DDR4 and has ECC memory support, but the database does not record its memory bus width or bandwidth figures. The EPYC also features PCIe Gen 4 support, while the Xeon's PCIe generation is not listed.

The sockets are different: the EPYC 7F52 uses AMD Socket SP3, and the Xeon Platinum 8180 uses Intel Socket 3647. Both parts are unlocked, meaning neither has a user-accessible multiplier for overclocking. Both are also ECC-capable, which is expected for the server/workstation market segment. The release dates differ, with the Xeon launching on 2017-07-10 and the EPYC on 2020-04-13.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the AMD EPYC 7F52 across all six Cinebench tests. There is no test in the database where the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 comes out ahead. That makes the use-case split straightforward from the measurements.

For single-threaded performance, the EPYC 7F52 is the clear choice. Its single-core scores are 8% higher in every Cinebench version. The higher base and boost clocks, combined with the newer Zen 2 architecture, give it a decisive edge in lightly threaded workloads such as compilation tasks, scripting, or any application that relies on a few fast cores.

For multi-threaded performance, the result is counterintuitive but equally clear. The Xeon Platinum 8180 has 28 cores and 56 threads, but the EPYC 7F52 with 16 cores and 32 threads still wins by 8%. That means the AMD chip is better suited for heavily threaded workloads like rendering, scientific computing, and database queries, despite having fewer threads. The per-core efficiency of Zen 2 more than compensates for the core count deficit.

The only place the Xeon Platinum 8180 holds an advantage in the database is in its core and thread count itself. If a workload scales perfectly with thread count and is not limited by cache or memory bandwidth, the Xeon's 28 cores and 56 threads could theoretically win. However, the Cinebench results, which are heavily multi-threaded, show that this theoretical advantage does not materialize in practice. The database records zero wins for the Intel part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 scores 4958 points in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 scores 4591 points, giving AMD an 8% advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head benchmark results show six wins for the AMD EPYC 7F52 and zero wins for the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the AMD EPYC 7F52 has 16 cores and 32 threads. The Intel part has 12 more cores and 24 more threads, yet it loses all multi-core benchmarks.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 uses a 7 nm process node from TSMC, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 uses a 14 nm process node from Intel.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 has 256 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 has 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache. AMD's L3 cache is significantly larger.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds?

A: The AMD EPYC 7F52 boosts to 3.90 GHz, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 boosts to 3.80 GHz. The base clocks are 3.50 GHz for AMD and 2.50 GHz for Intel.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors in the database:

• Cores: 16 (AMD) vs 28 (Intel)
• Threads: 32 (AMD) vs 56 (Intel)
• Base Clock: 3.50 GHz (AMD) vs 2.50 GHz (Intel)
• Boost Clock: 3.90 GHz (AMD) vs 3.80 GHz (Intel)
• TDP: 240 W (AMD) vs 205 W (Intel)
• Socket: AMD Socket SP3 (AMD) vs Intel Socket 3647 (Intel)
• Architecture: Zen 2 (AMD) vs Skylake (Intel)
• Codename: Rome (AMD) vs Skylake-SP (Intel)
• Process Node: 7 nm (AMD) vs 14 nm (Intel)
• Foundry: TSMC (AMD) vs Intel (Intel)
• Transistors: 3,800 million (AMD) vs 8,000 million (Intel)
• Die Size: 74 mm² (AMD) vs not listed (Intel)
• L1 Cache: 96 KB per core (AMD) vs 64 KB per core (Intel)
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core (AMD) vs 1 MB per core (Intel)
• L3 Cache: 256 MB shared (AMD) vs 38.5 MB shared (Intel)
• Memory Bus: Eight-channel (AMD) vs not listed (Intel)
• Memory Bandwidth: 204.8 GB/s (AMD) vs not listed (Intel)
• PCIe: Gen 4 (AMD) vs not listed (Intel)
• Release Date: 2020-04-13 (AMD) vs 2017-07-10 (Intel)
• Part Number: 100-000000140100-000000140WOF (AMD) vs SR377CD8067303314400 (Intel)

The two processors share the same market segment (Server/Workstation), both support DDR4 memory, both have ECC memory support, and neither has an unlocked multiplier or integrated graphics. Their average benchmark scores and percentile rankings also differ, with the EPYC 7F52 at 10159 average score and 66th percentile, and the Xeon Platinum 8180 at 9406 average score and 65th percentile.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear conclusion: the AMD EPYC 7F52 is the better processor in every benchmark recorded. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests by an 8% margin. It has a higher average benchmark score (10159 versus 9406) and a higher percentile ranking (66th versus 65th). It does this with fewer cores (16 versus 28) and fewer threads (32 versus 56), which makes the result even more striking.

For a buyer choosing between these two server processors, the EPYC 7F52 is the pick if benchmark performance is the priority. It delivers higher single-core and multi-core scores across every test version in the database. The higher base clock (3.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz) and boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.80 GHz) give it a per-thread advantage that the Xeon cannot overcome. The larger L3 cache (256 MB versus 38.5 MB) and newer 7 nm process node further support its performance lead.

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 does have one advantage: more cores and threads. For workloads that are not represented in the Cinebench database and that scale purely with thread count, the 28-core, 56-thread Xeon could be relevant. But the recorded data shows that in the most common rendering and compute benchmarks, the 16-core EPYC 7F52 is 8% faster. The Xeon also has a lower TDP at 205 W versus 240 W, which could matter in power-constrained environments, but the database does not include power efficiency benchmarks.

The verdict is straightforward: the AMD EPYC 7F52 wins based on all available measurements. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180 is the older, larger, and slower option in this comparison. Choose the EPYC 7F52 for better performance across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.